IS #102 round 5 wrote:In 2002 this team acquired center Dikembe Mutombo in exchange for Todd MacCulloch and Keith Van Horn; even though Mutombo spent most of the season injured, the play of Lucious Harris and Kenyon Martin helped this team advance to the NBA finals, which they lost to the Spurs. More recently, this team was purchased by (*) Russia's Mikhail Prokhorov. For 10 points--name this NBA franchise that now plays in Newark.

IS #102 round 10 wrote:Its first bowl win came at the 1937 Rose Bowl and Pop Warner coached here from 1915 to 1923. Hugh Green, Mike Ditka, Tony Dorsett, Ironhead Heyward, Dan Marino, and Larry Fitzgerald all went to this school that plays in the "Backyard Brawl" against (*) West Virginia. Its current coach is Dave Wannstedt. For 10 points--name this Big East team with a panther mascot that plays in Heinz Field.

IS #102 round 5 wrote:In 2002 this team acquired center Dikembe Mutombo in exchange for Todd MacCulloch and Keith Van Horn; even though Mutombo spent most of the season injured, the play of Lucious Harris and Kenyon Martin helped this team advance to the NBA finals, which they lost to the Spurs. More recently, this team was purchased by (*) Russia's Mikhail Prokhorov. For 10 points--name this NBA franchise that now plays in Newark.

IS #102 round 10 wrote:Its first bowl win came at the 1937 Rose Bowl and Pop Warner coached here from 1915 to 1923. Hugh Green, Mike Ditka, Tony Dorsett, Ironhead Heyward, Dan Marino, and Larry Fitzgerald all went to this school that plays in the "Backyard Brawl" against (*) West Virginia. Its current coach is Dave Wannstedt. For 10 points--name this Big East team with a panther mascot that plays in Heinz Field.

Thanks, and what was the conversion for the Nets one? That seemed relatively difficult.

IS #102 round 5 wrote:In 2002 this team acquired center Dikembe Mutombo in exchange for Todd MacCulloch and Keith Van Horn; even though Mutombo spent most of the season injured, the play of Lucious Harris and Kenyon Martin helped this team advance to the NBA finals, which they lost to the Spurs. More recently, this team was purchased by (*) Russia's Mikhail Prokhorov. For 10 points--name this NBA franchise that now plays in Newark.

IS #102 round 10 wrote:Its first bowl win came at the 1937 Rose Bowl and Pop Warner coached here from 1915 to 1923. Hugh Green, Mike Ditka, Tony Dorsett, Ironhead Heyward, Dan Marino, and Larry Fitzgerald all went to this school that plays in the "Backyard Brawl" against (*) West Virginia. Its current coach is Dave Wannstedt. For 10 points--name this Big East team with a panther mascot that plays in Heinz Field.

Thanks, and what was the conversion for the Nets one? That seemed relatively difficult.

Really? For any decent basketball fan, Kenyon Martin is a relatively easy clue (he's only played on two teams, and the Nuggets never made the Finals). Maybe it's just that my team knows way too much about basketball (we had a very physical buzzer race after "Mutombo"), but the Pitt football one seemed harder.

IS #102 round 5 wrote:In 2002 this team acquired center Dikembe Mutombo in exchange for Todd MacCulloch and Keith Van Horn; even though Mutombo spent most of the season injured, the play of Lucious Harris and Kenyon Martin helped this team advance to the NBA finals, which they lost to the Spurs. More recently, this team was purchased by (*) Russia's Mikhail Prokhorov. For 10 points--name this NBA franchise that now plays in Newark.

IS #102 round 10 wrote:Its first bowl win came at the 1937 Rose Bowl and Pop Warner coached here from 1915 to 1923. Hugh Green, Mike Ditka, Tony Dorsett, Ironhead Heyward, Dan Marino, and Larry Fitzgerald all went to this school that plays in the "Backyard Brawl" against (*) West Virginia. Its current coach is Dave Wannstedt. For 10 points--name this Big East team with a panther mascot that plays in Heinz Field.

Thanks, and what was the conversion for the Nets one? That seemed relatively difficult.

Really? For any decent basketball fan, Kenyon Martin is a relatively easy clue (he's only played on two teams, and the Nuggets never made the Finals). Maybe it's just that my team knows way too much about basketball (we had a very physical buzzer race after "Mutombo"), but the Pitt football one seemed harder.

I reflexed buzzed on Martin and said the Nuggets (then I realized "OOPS, the Nuggets never made the finals, it must be the Nets") the sports guy on our B team instantly powered on Mutombo, the first really distinguishable clue I recognized was the Russian dude who bought them. Personally I felt this was harder than the Boston Celtics tossup in 105, which began "In 2009, this team drafted Gabe Pruitt and Jeff Green in the NBA draft", the reason being is because the info is a lot older on the Nets in that question.

As for the Pitt football one, knowing where Dorsett, Fitzgerald and Dan Marino played should be common knowledge among college football fans. There were harder things I think that could've been included i.e. The 35-0 drubbing they took in the 2005 Fiesta Bowl, the first time a NON-BCS team won a BCS bowl, the upset of the then #2 West Virginia squad 13-9 in Morgantown. Or better yet, losing 72-0 to Ohio State in 1996 (snicker)

We're talking about things that happened in the NBA in 2002, 9 years ago, when current high schoolers were in kindergarten-3rd grade. It takes active NBA fandom to know things from that long ago, so it's fine to lead off a question with that -- actually, even then, nine years back is pretty intense for a regular season HS question. That's a pretty hard question, mostly because the Nets haven't been relevant since the early 2000s (and the thing they were relevant for, being abysmal in 2009-10, wasn't even mentioned).

styxman wrote:We're talking about things that happened in the NBA in 2002, 9 years ago, when current high schoolers were in kindergarten-3rd grade. It takes active NBA fandom to know things from that long ago, so it's fine to lead off a question with that -- actually, even then, nine years back is pretty intense for a regular season HS question. That's a pretty hard question, mostly because the Nets haven't been relevant since the early 2000s (and the thing they were relevant for, being abysmal in 2009-10, wasn't even mentioned).

I can see that. Being from the NY/NJ area and growing up with the successful Nets probably made this much easier for me. I wasn't claiming the Mutombo thing was inappropriate to lead with, I was just saying that the question wasn't too hard for this level. If you're an NBA fan, even if you don't remember that Mutombo was on those Finals Nets, Martin should be gettable in power. I guess it's hard for someone who doesn't know the NBA that well to power, but really, isn't that the point of power-marking?

I'll just point out that with most sports trash, if you don't read the sports question, watch ESPN, or live in the vicinity of the team, it's utterly impossible. I would have gotten the Nets question at the Russian dude because a New York Times article about him founding a political party mentioned that he owned the Nets, but I'd have known nothing about the Pittsburgh one. Trash (especially sports) is almost impossible to write in a way that is accessible to people who just aren't interested in that topic, uniquely so, given that most people probably have at least a tiny bit of knowledge about all academic subjects from school. I've even answered chemistry Tossups because something osmosed itself into my brain.

Joe NutterPACEMichigan State University '14Walnut Hills High School '11

Joe N wrote:I'll just point out that with most sports trash, if you don't read the sports question, watch ESPN, or live in the vicinity of the team, it's utterly impossible. I would have gotten the Nets question at the Russian dude because a New York Times article about him founding a political party mentioned that he owned the Nets, but I'd have known nothing about the Pittsburgh one. Trash (especially sports) is almost impossible to write in a way that is accessible to people who just aren't interested in that topic, uniquely so, given that most people probably have at least a tiny bit of knowledge about all academic subjects from school. I've even answered chemistry Tossups because something osmosed itself into my brain.

I respectfully disagree. TRASH (notably Sporting Events) makes the news and in some cases some events that are academic (Current Events) are created in response to a TRASH event, i.e. "They weren't rioting in Vancouver a week ago for no reason".

Joe N wrote:I'll just point out that with most sports trash, if you don't read the sports question, watch ESPN, or live in the vicinity of the team, it's utterly impossible. I would have gotten the Nets question at the Russian dude because a New York Times article about him founding a political party mentioned that he owned the Nets, but I'd have known nothing about the Pittsburgh one. Trash (especially sports) is almost impossible to write in a way that is accessible to people who just aren't interested in that topic, uniquely so, given that most people probably have at least a tiny bit of knowledge about all academic subjects from school. I've even answered chemistry Tossups because something osmosed itself into my brain.

Joe Nutter is 100% correct, and this provides a good argument for reducing the amount of sports in the NAQT distribution.

Joe N wrote:I'll just point out that with most sports trash, if you don't read the sports question, watch ESPN, or live in the vicinity of the team, it's utterly impossible. I would have gotten the Nets question at the Russian dude because a New York Times article about him founding a political party mentioned that he owned the Nets, but I'd have known nothing about the Pittsburgh one. Trash (especially sports) is almost impossible to write in a way that is accessible to people who just aren't interested in that topic, uniquely so, given that most people probably have at least a tiny bit of knowledge about all academic subjects from school. I've even answered chemistry Tossups because something osmosed itself into my brain.

If you don't know anything about basketball, you won't get basketball questions.. is there anything wrong with this?

Joe N wrote:I'll just point out that with most sports trash, if you don't read the sports question, watch ESPN, or live in the vicinity of the team, it's utterly impossible. I would have gotten the Nets question at the Russian dude because a New York Times article about him founding a political party mentioned that he owned the Nets, but I'd have known nothing about the Pittsburgh one. Trash (especially sports) is almost impossible to write in a way that is accessible to people who just aren't interested in that topic, uniquely so, given that most people probably have at least a tiny bit of knowledge about all academic subjects from school. I've even answered chemistry Tossups because something osmosed itself into my brain.

Joe Nutter is 100% correct, and this provides a good argument for reducing the amount of sports in the NAQT distribution.

Joe N wrote:I'll just point out that with most sports trash, if you don't read the sports question, watch ESPN, or live in the vicinity of the team, it's utterly impossible. I would have gotten the Nets question at the Russian dude because a New York Times article about him founding a political party mentioned that he owned the Nets, but I'd have known nothing about the Pittsburgh one. Trash (especially sports) is almost impossible to write in a way that is accessible to people who just aren't interested in that topic, uniquely so, given that most people probably have at least a tiny bit of knowledge about all academic subjects from school. I've even answered chemistry Tossups because something osmosed itself into my brain.

Joe Nutter is 100% correct, and this provides a good argument for reducing the amount of sports in the NAQT distribution.

No, this is ridiculous. If you know very little about chemistry, you shouldn't be getting chemistry tossups. This is akin to saying music should have no part in the distribution, because I can't learn about it through anything other than music classes, and I'm not taking any.

That Nets question was not hard. You wanting to get sports questions without watching ESPN is like wanting to get literature questions without reading a book. It's bound to happen if you hear enough tossups, but why reward someone for it?

There are many reasons why one would want to eliminate trash from the distribution, but accessibility is definitely not one of them.

styxman wrote:We're talking about things that happened in the NBA in 2002, 9 years ago, when current high schoolers were in kindergarten-3rd grade. It takes active NBA fandom to know things from that long ago, so it's fine to lead off a question with that -- actually, even then, nine years back is pretty intense for a regular season HS question. That's a pretty hard question, mostly because the Nets haven't been relevant since the early 2000s (and the thing they were relevant for, being abysmal in 2009-10, wasn't even mentioned).

I play NBA Live 2003 on a regular basis, so IIRC I got that tossup at Keith Van Horn. He was kind of a big deal on the team back then. Also, for some reason when I watched basketball when I was younger I remembered the white players more (my favorite players growing up were Slava Medvedenko, Mark Madsen, and Luke Ridnour) Point being: Trash is more powerable because it's so much easier to pick up little tidbits like this without caring. For example, in a lit tossup about a work, if it's written well, the only people who should be first-lining the tossup are people who have read the work or the top 1/10 of 1% of lit players. With sports, however, all it takes is a decent memory and lots of Sportscenter or old video games and you can first line most team tossups, like that Nets one. Van Horn wasn't notable, but I don't have to be an avid Nets fan to get the tossup.

Joe N wrote:I'll just point out that with most sports trash, if you don't read the sports question, watch ESPN, or live in the vicinity of the team, it's utterly impossible. I would have gotten the Nets question at the Russian dude because a New York Times article about him founding a political party mentioned that he owned the Nets, but I'd have known nothing about the Pittsburgh one. Trash (especially sports) is almost impossible to write in a way that is accessible to people who just aren't interested in that topic, uniquely so, given that most people probably have at least a tiny bit of knowledge about all academic subjects from school. I've even answered chemistry Tossups because something osmosed itself into my brain.

Joe Nutter is 100% correct, and this provides a good argument for reducing the amount of sports in the NAQT distribution.

This suggests that we should select easier answers, but write slightly harder leadins.

I'd say that these stats back up my point: if you aren't a hard-core sports fan, you aren't going to be getting sports questions, while if you are really into sports it's easy to power them. My point was that a reasonably intelligent person could expect to have at least basic knowledge of pretty much all the regular academic subjects, but doesn't necessarily for sports. Not enough knowledge on real things to get lots of powers, or even good buzzes, but be able to pick up difficulty-appropriate tossups at the end from class and minimal outside effort. But where can a person even start who wants to know sports questions but doesn't live the "sports life" and follow ESPN all the time? There's just this massive array of information out there of teams and college and professional players in many different sports. You can't exactly study for it like a player who wants to improve can for most subjects.

EDIT: Clarification

Joe NutterPACEMichigan State University '14Walnut Hills High School '11

Joe N wrote:I'd say that these stats back up my point: if you aren't a hard-core sports fan, you aren't going to be getting sports questions, while if you are really into sports it's easy to power them. My point was that a reasonably intelligent person could expect to have at least basic knowledge of pretty much all the regular academic subjects, but doesn't necessarily for sports. Not enough knowledge on real things to get lots of powers, or even good buzzes, but be able to pick up difficulty-appropriate tossups at the end from class and minimal outside effort. But where can a person even start who wants to know sports questions but doesn't live the "sports life" and follow ESPN all the time? There's just this massive array of information out there of teams and college and professional players in many different sports. You can't exactly study for it like a player who wants to improve can for most subjects.

EDIT: Clarification

I'm not sure what reasoning you can use for the first half of your statement. Using the very tossup that is being discussed (the New Jersey Nets one), Mikhail Prokhorov was mentioned just outside of power. His purchase of the Nets was all over the news, and it was even the leading story on an episode of 60 Minutes that was seen by tens of millions of people who aren't sports fans. I'm sure that "reasonably intelligent" people were more exposed to that than they are of any details in a typical chemistry tossup. That tossup did exactly what it was supposed to do: It gave information that allowed people who follow the NBA to power and gave information that a casual sports fan or news observer would know for ten. The Pittsburgh tossup would be the same. A person with firsthand knowledge would know it at Ditka, while an observer would be able to infer Pittsburgh off of "the college team where Heinz is from." I'm not saying I agree with you that we should reward knowledge outside of the subject, but if we suppose that is the case, your point is simply wrong.

Joe N wrote: My point was that a reasonably intelligent person could expect to have at least basic knowledge of pretty much all the regular academic subjects, but doesn't necessarily for sports. Not enough knowledge on real things to get lots of powers, or even good buzzes, but be able to pick up difficulty-appropriate tossups at the end from class and minimal outside effort.

Are you really suggesting that it takes more than minimal outside effort to come up with "New Jersey" after a giveaway of "NBA franchise that now plays in Newark"?

I think Jeff has it exactly right when he says

This suggests that we should select easier answers, but write slightly harder leadins.

As long as these questions have appropriately accessible giveaway clues ("Newark"), they should routinely be converted with minimal or no outside effort. The hard part is coming up with early clues that can distinguish deeper levels of knowledge. Or, as Jeff more concisely put it, slightly harder leadins.

Brian WeikleI say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things. More, I cannot say.

I don't know that those sports statistics necessarily suggest the conclusion you've reached, Jeff. Sports is a topic where there are naturally going to be an especially large number of diehard fans who are going to be able to power lots of tossups off of legitimately deep knowledge that should be worth a power, and is similarly going to have a larger than usual group of people (quizbowl players especially) who will almost never be able to answer sports questions beyond things with very basic answerlines like "soccer," which obviously can't be all of the sports questions in a season of quizbowl. Punishing the group of players who really do know a lot about sports is not the answer, and I don't know that making answerlines easier than things like the names of current teams that get plenty of media coverage like the New jersey Nets this year is really the answer either. At a certain point, you just don't know sports and can't answer most appropriate questions about it, and there's little that can be done to fix that.

Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White

Joe N wrote: You can't exactly study for it like a player who wants to improve can for most subjects.

I vehemently disagree. You improve in most subjects by reading up on them or maybe even watching TV. You improve in sports/politics by either watching TV or reading up on them. There are books about sports, for example Bill Simmons wrote an important one. Sports are VERY accessible to the public. Just because you don't like sports doesn't mean that they're hard to study for, it just means you're disinterested in that particular topic and so you don't deserve these points that will inevitably go to the other team. Besides, you go to quizbowl tournaments, not packetology tournaments, and there are things outside the packet archive that are either interesting or worth knowing. Quizbowl is not just an academic game, it is a game where new material of all kinds is constantly being introduced, and almost all of the new material makes the game more interesting to play than it would be without it.

Both questions were really accessible and well written. There's a sports section in newspapers, you know, so maybe you shouldn't just throw it away next time. Sports are important, just like politics are important. You can learn about them by reading a newspaper or watching TV. Pittsburgh might have been a little tougher to get than the Nets but it's still a high school level tossup and was with the easiest possible clues.

Jeremy Gibbs Freesy Does It wrote:I don't know that those sports statistics necessarily suggest the conclusion you've reached, Jeff. Sports is a topic where there are naturally going to be an especially large number of diehard fans who are going to be able to power lots of tossups off of legitimately deep knowledge that should be worth a power, and is similarly going to have a larger than usual group of people (quizbowl players especially) who will almost never be able to answer sports questions beyond things with very basic answerlines like "soccer," which obviously can't be all of the sports questions in a season of quizbowl. Punishing the group of players who really do know a lot about sports is not the answer, and I don't know that making answerlines easier than things like the names of current teams that get plenty of media coverage like the New jersey Nets this year is really the answer either. At a certain point, you just don't know sports and can't answer most appropriate questions about it, and there's little that can be done to fix that.

I didn't mean to suggest "punishing" players, just writing leadins that were a bit harder in the interest of 1. avoiding buzzer races in rooms with more than one fan of that particular sport and 2. bringing power rates on sports questions in line with the rest of the set.

Jeremy Gibbs Freesy Does It wrote:NAQT power rates are too low as is. I don't see why bringing one category that's better than usual in line with the rest of the set is a great solution.

That's actually a good point--what do you see as the ideal power rate? Every time I've worked on a set I've moved power rates further and further forward, and we seem to have stabilized at, at most, 25% powers. Might that just be the number of pre-FTP buzzes possible, or are you saying that there should be more more-accessible leadins? In that case, you're saying we should make the rest of the subjects' leadins easier and keep sports leadins the same (since they're approaching what you see as a more appropriate power rate). Is that approximately what you mean?

Joe N wrote: You can't exactly study for it like a player who wants to improve can for most subjects.

I vehemently disagree. You improve in most subjects by reading up on them or maybe even watching TV. You improve in sports/politics by either watching TV or reading up on them. There are books about sports, for example Bill Simmons wrote an important one. Sports are VERY accessible to the public. Just because you don't like sports doesn't mean that they're hard to study for, it just means you're disinterested in that particular topic and so you don't deserve these points that will inevitably go to the other team. Besides, you go to quizbowl tournaments, not packetology tournaments, and there are things outside the packet archive that are either interesting or worth knowing. Quizbowl is not just an academic game, it is a game where new material of all kinds is constantly being introduced, and almost all of the new material makes the game more interesting to play than it would be without it.

Both questions were really accessible and well written. There's a sports section in newspapers, you know, so maybe you shouldn't just throw it away next time. Sports are important, just like politics are important. You can learn about them by reading a newspaper or watching TV. Pittsburgh might have been a little tougher to get than the Nets but it's still a high school level tossup and was with the easiest possible clues.

I agree with what you said except for the bolded (and I'm not trying to divert the discussion at all)), as I can point out a huge difficulty difference in the clues between the Nets question in 102 and the Boston Celtics question in 105 (if someone can post this, that'd be great). While both had really accessible answerlines (Anyone could have said "New Jersey" and that'd be acceptable even after the explicit "Newark" clue), the majority of the context on the Nets question happened, like Brad said, 9 years ago, while the Celtics question explicitly states things that happened within the past two years. Also, the Celtics question contains names of current players, the most recent player to play for the Nets that was in the Nets question was Lucious Harris about 7 years ago, and, not to mention the Nets have been extremely irrelevant the past few years while the Celtics have been the best team in the east the past few years.

Also, I concur with Charlie's statement about the X number of players that know sports with solid knowledge have a better chance of getting the questions than non sports fans.

EDIT: Another thought; would it be possible if NAQT tried to do a "Geographic exclusion" principle on the Sports questions and where they're heard? Like, we heard the Pitt football tossup in 102 when we were at Battle of the Burgh, held at the University of Pittsburgh, thankfully we were scrimmaging ourselves in a bye, because it could've been really bad if it was a tight game and we played one of the 20 something Pittsburgh area teams there.

IS #105 round 12 wrote:In the 2007 draft, this NBA team selected Gabe Pruitt and Jeff Green; the latter was immediately traded, along with Wally Szczerbiak, to Seattle. A month later, they traded Al Jefferson to (*) Minnesota. Those moves enabled them to improve by an NBA-record 42 wins and capture the title during the 2007-2008 season as Paul Pierce was joined by Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. For 10 points--name this NBA team from New England.

CavsFan2k10 wrote:EDIT: Another thought; would it be possible if NAQT tried to do a "Geographic exclusion" principle on the Sports questions and where they're heard? Like, we heard the Pitt football tossup in 102 when we were at Battle of the Burgh, held at the University of Pittsburgh, thankfully we were scrimmaging ourselves in a bye, because it could've been really bad if it was a tight game and we played one of the 20 something Pittsburgh area teams there.

I'm pretty sure this would be a gigantic pain, since we would want to adjust the current events, history, geography, etc.

Not to mention it's as selfish as it gets to not want teams with deep knowledge of a topic to have a chance to win a game against you because of a question that rewards that deep knowledge.

Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White

IS #105 round 12 wrote:In the 2007 draft, this NBA team selected Gabe Pruitt and Jeff Green; the latter was immediately traded, along with Wally Szczerbiak, to Seattle. A month later, they traded Al Jefferson to (*) Minnesota. Those moves enabled them to improve by an NBA-record 42 wins and capture the title during the 2007-2008 season as Paul Pierce was joined by Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. For 10 points--name this NBA team from New England.

Yeah, this one was a little easy. But then again, it would be unhealthy if the high school canon just consisted of Federer, Nadal, Celtics, Lakers, LeBron, Kobe, Steelers, Packers, and a few other super-notables, so it's nice to see some teams/franchises that aren't necessarily at the top of their respective leagues right now show up in questions. This tossup was probably easier to convert if you don't follow sports as much as either of us do, mainly because this stuff happened more recently and the Celtics are still relevant whereas I can see someone who doesn't watch basketball frequently either not knowing or forgetting that the Nets lost to the Spurs in the finals. Also, Brian Scalabrine should be mentioned in all Celtics tossups.

IS #105 round 12 wrote:In the 2007 draft, this NBA team selected Gabe Pruitt and Jeff Green; the latter was immediately traded, along with Wally Szczerbiak, to Seattle. A month later, they traded Al Jefferson to (*) Minnesota. Those moves enabled them to improve by an NBA-record 42 wins and capture the title during the 2007-2008 season as Paul Pierce was joined by Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. For 10 points--name this NBA team from New England.

I negged this one with Minnesota because Szczerbiak is so much more famous as a T-Wolf.

IS #105 round 12 wrote:In the 2007 draft, this NBA team selected Gabe Pruitt and Jeff Green; the latter was immediately traded, along with Wally Szczerbiak, to Seattle. A month later, they traded Al Jefferson to (*) Minnesota. Those moves enabled them to improve by an NBA-record 42 wins and capture the title during the 2007-2008 season as Paul Pierce was joined by Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. For 10 points--name this NBA team from New England.

I negged this one with Minnesota because Szczerbiak is so much more famous as a T-Wolf.

Yeah, it could've been catastrophic if they mentioned Szczerbiak and Garnett, two former T-Wolves together. Jeff Green still plays with the Celtics, I didn't even know they traded him.

IS #105 round 12 wrote:In the 2007 draft, this NBA team selected Gabe Pruitt and Jeff Green; the latter was immediately traded, along with Wally Szczerbiak, to Seattle. A month later, they traded Al Jefferson to (*) Minnesota. Those moves enabled them to improve by an NBA-record 42 wins and capture the title during the 2007-2008 season as Paul Pierce was joined by Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. For 10 points--name this NBA team from New England.

I negged this one with Minnesota because Szczerbiak is so much more famous as a T-Wolf.

Yeah, it could've been catastrophic if they mentioned Szczerbiak and Garnett, two former T-Wolves together. Jeff Green still plays with the Celtics, I didn't even know they traded him.

Really? You missed the whole "Durant/Westbrook/Green" Thunder thing last year? And that was the deal that netted the Celtics Ray Allen; I'd prefer a lead-in a little more obscure than that. Maybe something about Bill Walker or another bench player that title year.

IS #105 round 12 wrote:In the 2007 draft, this NBA team selected Gabe Pruitt and Jeff Green; the latter was immediately traded, along with Wally Szczerbiak, to Seattle. A month later, they traded Al Jefferson to (*) Minnesota. Those moves enabled them to improve by an NBA-record 42 wins and capture the title during the 2007-2008 season as Paul Pierce was joined by Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. For 10 points--name this NBA team from New England.

I negged this one with Minnesota because Szczerbiak is so much more famous as a T-Wolf.

Yeah, it could've been catastrophic if they mentioned Szczerbiak and Garnett, two former T-Wolves together. Jeff Green still plays with the Celtics, I didn't even know they traded him.

Really? You missed the whole "Durant/Westbrook/Green" Thunder thing last year? And that was the deal that netted the Celtics Ray Allen; I'd prefer a lead-in a little more obscure than that. Maybe something about Bill Walker or another bench player that title year.

Yeah I know they got Ray Allen that way, and IIRC correctly the whole Szczerbiak exchange is how they got Garnett.

Joe N wrote: You can't exactly study for it like a player who wants to improve can for most subjects.

I vehemently disagree. You improve in most subjects by reading up on them or maybe even watching TV. You improve in sports/politics by either watching TV or reading up on them. There are books about sports, for example Bill Simmons wrote an important one. Sports are VERY accessible to the public. Just because you don't like sports doesn't mean that they're hard to study for, it just means you're disinterested in that particular topic and so you don't deserve these points that will inevitably go to the other team. Besides, you go to quizbowl tournaments, not packetology tournaments, and there are things outside the packet archive that are either interesting or worth knowing. Quizbowl is not just an academic game, it is a game where new material of all kinds is constantly being introduced, and almost all of the new material makes the game more interesting to play than it would be without it.

Ok, so first of all I'll just point out that I never study from reading packets, and support both canon expansion where appropriate and current events questions, both of which keep the game fresh. The problem is that for most quizbowl subjects, a reasonably intelligent person can be expected to come across them in life by taking classes and reading books. You don't have to be crazy about modernist literature to pick up For Whom the Bell Tolls, but I can't think of anyone not crazy about football knowing who played for whatever random team. People with a passing interest in history will likely know at least basic stuff, people with a passing interest in hockey might turn on the Stanley Cup finals and see who won, but not know the names of players and stuff.

Sports are important, just like politics are important. You can learn about them by reading a newspaper or watching TV.

Seriously? You think it's equally important who played for the New Jersey Nets as it is who's working on, like, making the government not default on it's debt and destroy the economy? That doesn't make any sense. Sports is entertainment, an what happens in sports now doesn't really influence what happens in the wider world. Decisions made by state, national, and supranational governments influence every aspect of their citizens' daily lives an can have repercussions for years.

Joe NutterPACEMichigan State University '14Walnut Hills High School '11

Joe N wrote:Ok, so first of all I'll just point out that I never study from reading packets, and support both canon expansion where appropriate and current events questions, both of which keep the game fresh. The problem is that for most quizbowl subjects, a reasonably intelligent person can be expected to come across them in life by taking classes and reading books. You don't have to be crazy about modernist literature to pick up For Whom the Bell Tolls, but I can't think of anyone not crazy about football knowing who played for whatever random team. People with a passing interest in history will likely know at least basic stuff, people with a passing interest in hockey might turn on the Stanley Cup finals and see who won, but not know the names of players and stuff.

The only people that would get a question on For Whom the Bell Tolls, are either a.) People who have read the book b.) People who know the plot/characters or c.) Are taking a stab in the dark or guessing because its also the name of a Metallica song. I disagree with the passing interest in hockey conclusion. You hear commentators, you see player names on jerseys. The people who have "passing interests" in hockey don't just watch hockey, they'll more than likely also watch other sports such as basketball and football.

Seriously? You think it's equally important who played for the New Jersey Nets as it is who's working on, like, making the government not default on it's debt and destroy the economy? That doesn't make any sense. Sports is entertainment, an what happens in sports now doesn't really influence what happens in the wider world. Decisions made by state, national, and supranational governments influence every aspect of their citizens' daily lives an can have repercussions for years.

The argument isn't the "equal importance" between apples and oranges, or as you say, who played for the Nets vs real issues (I guess you could say), but the argument is that being culturally literate in this day in age (and current events literate too) requires things such as sports to stay active and not "out of the loop" persay on what happens. Please tell me you've heard of when college football teams win the mythical National Championship and visit the White House for a day. "What happens in sports now doesn't really influence what happens in the wider world" - sure it does, in fact, they go hand in hand. The riots in Vancouver were over a hockey game. The 1996 Olympics had a huge effect on Atlanta, Georgia, such as the needed infrastructure changes in the city to accommodate, and sadly the Centennial Park bombing had an effect to a certain extent as well. Or in 1980 when President Carter decided to boycott the Moscow games to protest the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. Even the 1980 Winter Olympics had a cultural impact on not only the United States but the western world.

(And yes, I wish there was less TRASH)

EDIT: I also think it's worth mentioning the most recent World Cup, the 2010 World Cup, held in South Africa. That had a huge economic impact on the nation as well as a culture impact, keep in mind 20 years ago this nation still was under apartheid. Soccer in South Africa was unification, a good example to show this would be if you saw the movie "Invictus".

Joe N wrote: You can't exactly study for it like a player who wants to improve can for most subjects.

I vehemently disagree. You improve in most subjects by reading up on them or maybe even watching TV. You improve in sports/politics by either watching TV or reading up on them. There are books about sports, for example Bill Simmons wrote an important one. Sports are VERY accessible to the public. Just because you don't like sports doesn't mean that they're hard to study for, it just means you're disinterested in that particular topic and so you don't deserve these points that will inevitably go to the other team. Besides, you go to quizbowl tournaments, not packetology tournaments, and there are things outside the packet archive that are either interesting or worth knowing. Quizbowl is not just an academic game, it is a game where new material of all kinds is constantly being introduced, and almost all of the new material makes the game more interesting to play than it would be without it.

Ok, so first of all I'll just point out that I never study from reading packets, and support both canon expansion where appropriate and current events questions, both of which keep the game fresh. The problem is that for most quizbowl subjects, a reasonably intelligent person can be expected to come across them in life by taking classes and reading books. You don't have to be crazy about modernist literature to pick up For Whom the Bell Tolls, but I can't think of anyone not crazy about football knowing who played for whatever random team. People with a passing interest in history will likely know at least basic stuff, people with a passing interest in hockey might turn on the Stanley Cup finals and see who won, but not know the names of players and stuff.

It's called an advantage. I'm smarter than you at sports and so I score. To think that you can come up with some convoluted argument that will neutralize me and others like me with said strength by trying to convince people that sports are irrelevant is futile. Dirichlet would laugh in your face for inventing such pitiful convolution. Note that there aren't a lot of sports questions in the canon with respect to the topics that you keep bringing up. This means those other topics are more important than sports, hence get more attention. You just want to eliminate things that you don't take a personal liking to, everyone can see this, it is one of the more obvious things to come up in an argument on the forums in quite some time. What's wrong with deep knowledge? You don't know how to accumulate sports knowledge so I don't see how you can determine how others accumulate it. Also what is this reasonably intelligent person crap that you keep coming up with? Everyone's set of knowledge is different, it doesn't all come from the packets, and there are several ways to gain knowledge, and you just so happen to not favor one or two of them. There are a lot of reasonably intelligent people that care more about the Canucks than The World as Will and Idea or some obscure Calvino novel that you had to have heard of in a packet. No one's telling you that you have to watch sports, however I am telling you that you deserve your zero because you never cared in the first place and don't have the faintest idea of what you are talking about, and if you lose by a question it is not the fault of sports or trash, it is your fault.

People with a passing interest in history will likely know at least basic stuff

...about everything in history, everything that ever happened? Come on. Sports are part of American history, by the way. The history of America is just not complete without sports. Politics and sports mingle on a daily basis. Have you ever heard of the Eighth Court of Appeals, for example?

Sports are important, just like politics are important. You can learn about them by reading a newspaper or watching TV.

Seriously? You think it's equally important who played for the New Jersey Nets as it is who's working on, like, making the government not default on it's debt and destroy the economy? That doesn't make any sense. Sports is entertainment, an what happens in sports now doesn't really influence what happens in the wider world. Decisions made by state, national, and supranational governments influence every aspect of their citizens' daily lives an can have repercussions for years.

According to NAQT there is more weight on current events than sports. I never said sports are equally important. Sports is entertainment, definitely. Entertainment is important. My personal opinion about politics doesn't weigh into this at all. You have misquoted me, which people often do when they're trying to make a point, and they should be called out on it, hence I am calling you out on it. You have been called out for writing that paragraph to try to make a point against me which you have no basis for even starting to write. I bestow forgiveness upon you, relax. I just said both were important, and sports are important too. I never said they have equal importance, you cannot find such a quote in my previous statement.

I don't think IS sets should get rid of trash (as opposed to HSNCT, of which limiting or eliminating might be okay, in my opinion). It should use accessible answers. All of the sports answers I've heard have been pretty accessible, assuming a baseline interest in sports. I don't really know why we keep going back and forth on this.

IS #105 round 8 wrote:Wade Boggs recorded his 3,000th hit while with this baseball team that has retired his #12 jersey. During the 2010 season, Arizona's Edwin Jackson no-hit this team, while the first no-hitter in franchise history was thrown by Matt (*) Garza en route to the American League East title. A beam of light replaced a sea creature as the symbol of--for 10 points--what team that plays home games in Tropicana Field in Florida?

Joe N wrote: You can't exactly study for it like a player who wants to improve can for most subjects.

I vehemently disagree. You improve in most subjects by reading up on them or maybe even watching TV. You improve in sports/politics by either watching TV or reading up on them. There are books about sports, for example Bill Simmons wrote an important one. Sports are VERY accessible to the public. Just because you don't like sports doesn't mean that they're hard to study for, it just means you're disinterested in that particular topic and so you don't deserve these points that will inevitably go to the other team. Besides, you go to quizbowl tournaments, not packetology tournaments, and there are things outside the packet archive that are either interesting or worth knowing. Quizbowl is not just an academic game, it is a game where new material of all kinds is constantly being introduced, and almost all of the new material makes the game more interesting to play than it would be without it.

Ok, so first of all I'll just point out that I never study from reading packets, and support both canon expansion where appropriate and current events questions, both of which keep the game fresh. The problem is that for most quizbowl subjects, a reasonably intelligent person can be expected to come across them in life by taking classes and reading books. You don't have to be crazy about modernist literature to pick up For Whom the Bell Tolls, but I can't think of anyone not crazy about football knowing who played for whatever random team. People with a passing interest in history will likely know at least basic stuff, people with a passing interest in hockey might turn on the Stanley Cup finals and see who won, but not know the names of players and stuff.

It's called an advantage. I'm smarter than you at sports and so I score. To think that you can come up with some convoluted argument that will neutralize me and others like me with said strength by trying to convince people that sports are irrelevant is futile. Dirichlet would laugh in your face for inventing such pitiful convolution. Note that there aren't a lot of sports questions in the canon with respect to the topics that you keep bringing up. This means those other topics are more important than sports, hence get more attention. You just want to eliminate things that you don't take a personal liking to, everyone can see this, it is one of the more obvious things to come up in an argument on the forums in quite some time. What's wrong with deep knowledge? You don't know how to accumulate sports knowledge so I don't see how you can determine how others accumulate it. Also what is this reasonably intelligent person crap that you keep coming up with? Everyone's set of knowledge is different, it doesn't all come from the packets, and there are several ways to gain knowledge, and you just so happen to not favor one or two of them. There are a lot of reasonably intelligent people that care more about the Canucks than The World as Will and Idea or some obscure Calvino novel that you had to have heard of in a packet. No one's telling you that you have to watch sports, however I am telling you that you deserve your zero because you never cared in the first place and don't have the faintest idea of what you are talking about, and if you lose by a question it is not the fault of sports or trash, it is your fault.

This is precisely my problem with trash in general, not just sports: if I know more about history, literature, fine arts, science, and social science than you do, I should win the game almost every time. Some teams know more about these things than me, and when they beat me I congratulate them and try to get better for next time. But when I play a team and answer more questions about these things than they do and lose, something's wrong. I do other things besides quizbowl for fun that don't come up, but just because I'm an Eagle Scout doesn't mean I'm going to argue for 2/2 camping and presentation skills, and just because I like Doctor Who and Star Trek doesn't make me want to have a guaranteed science fiction distribution in each game. And the idea that you can only learn about academic stuff from packets is simply absurd. As for the argument that it won't matter if you just get all the academic questions, quizbowl isn't about getting all the questions, that's called a grail and is obviously extremely rare. Quizbowl is about knowing more (and therefore getting more questions) that your opponent. If you get more academic questions, you should win the game, and that's it.

Sports are important, just like politics are important. You can learn about them by reading a newspaper or watching TV.

Seriously? You think it's equally important who played for the New Jersey Nets as it is who's working on, like, making the government not default on it's debt and destroy the economy? That doesn't make any sense. Sports is entertainment, an what happens in sports now doesn't really influence what happens in the wider world. Decisions made by state, national, and supranational governments influence every aspect of their citizens' daily lives an can have repercussions for years.

According to NAQT there is more weight on current events than sports. I never said sports are equally important. Sports is entertainment, definitely. Entertainment is important. My personal opinion about politics doesn't weigh into this at all. You have misquoted me, which people often do when they're trying to make a point, and they should be called out on it, hence I am calling you out on it. You have been called out for writing that paragraph to try to make a point against me which you have no basis for even starting to write. I bestow forgiveness upon you, relax. I just said both were important, and sports are important too. I never said they have equal importance, you cannot find such a quote in my previous statement.

Except they're not important at all. I'm fine with tossups on important things related to sports, like the Football War or Vancouver riots, but who won the 1937 Rose Bowl is not important and I don't understand how it could be considered to be.

Joe NutterPACEMichigan State University '14Walnut Hills High School '11

It almost seems like a few of these posts are saying either of these things:

"Sports are always as important as anything else in history, should be asked about in quizbowl, and you are not a knowledgeable person if you don't know sports stuff."

Or.

"Sports are never important at all because they are for entertainment, and quizbowl is an academic activity. So, sports should never come up, and you are wasting time knowing it for quizbowl."

Obviously both of these are very wrong. Sports is not "real history," but no sane (or learned?) person can argue that cultural icons like Babe Ruth or Jesse Owens are not also a significant figures in American History, that Joe Louis and Jackie Robinson are not also significant figures in African American history, and that some various Olympic events are not also significant events in diplomatic history... even if you discount "pop history" that's often taught in non-AP classes these days. These sort of things should be asked about.

Yet, to put my person opinion on this for really the first time, completely irrelevant sports trash like "relegation," specific athletes who are not also first-ballot slam-dunk everybody-in-America-knows-these-guys Hall-of-Famers (unlike the Amare Stoudamire tossup on the Valencia CC set this year or practically any other player), or meaningless/obscure/non-important teams (yes, New Jersey Nets and many more)... this stuff is just really silly. At the least, they should never ever be part of a high school Nationals event. But that's another discussion.

I never suggested that packet study was the only way to learn things, and never would. Most of the things that I remember I learn from actually reading about them, so I would never suggest that, and it's silly to suggest that I would.

Chrz, I'm not advocating that sports are as important as all other historical events. I never said the sports canon was as important as anything ever in history, clearly you didn't read my last post if your argument is directed at me. If it wasn't, apologies. Sports at national tournaments should be accessible, duh. However, certain people have a twisted definition of what accessible sports topics are, partially because they don't know much about sports in the first place, so there's a difference between actual accessibility and your definition of accessible. Look at the conversion rates and tell me that sports aren't accessible to a good percentage of the field. It's not like people don't convert these tossups. And the Nets are not a meaningless team even now, they've been in the news for the last few years so they count as an accessible topic, even if it is only because of their owner or their upcoming move to Brooklyn. They courted LeBron, they acquired Deron Williams, they made back-to-back Finals. This is all rather recent stuff and pretty notable. It's not like NAQT is tossing up World B. Free at HSNCT (although they did at ICT several years ago) so no, the sports topics that appear at this level tend to be easy and accessible as long as you care to know something about them. There is a such thing as a difficult answer line.

Joe, someday, after some tournament that we both attend, we'll sit down for a drink and have a discussion about this, or Belisarius, or even the 1/1 Thai cuisine and 1/1 Yoshi that I believe that NAQT should include in their trash distribution (is joke!). It's on me, dude. I believe I am done griping here, though.

Carangoides ciliarius wrote: Sports is not "real history," but no sane (or learned?) person can argue that cultural icons like Babe Ruth or Jesse Owens are not also a significant figures in American History, that Joe Louis and Jackie Robinson are not also significant figures in African American history, and that some various Olympic events are not also significant events in diplomatic history... even if you discount "pop history" that's often taught in non-AP classes these days. These sort of things should be asked about.

I agree that this is exactly what the sports distribution should be filled with, if it must exist. These are things that are important and do matter in the long term.

DarkMatter wrote:Joe, someday, after some tournament that we both attend, we'll sit down for a drink and have a discussion about this, or Belisarius, or even the 1/1 Thai cuisine and 1/1 Yoshi that I believe that NAQT should include in their trash distribution (is joke!). It's on me, dude. I believe I am done griping here, though.

Haha, OK. It's less than a year to next year's ICT.

Joe NutterPACEMichigan State University '14Walnut Hills High School '11

I strongly disagree with attempting to quantify "important" sports history. Note what I am speaking of is sports questions that are classified basically as trash for IS-sets and the like, not in allowing legitimate sports history into non-trash portions of a distribution. Attempting to quantify "important" things will probably lead to a pretty small answer space. Picking out accessible answer lines should be key here, not attempting to use some standards of importance. For instance, a tossup on the New Jersey Nets is fine. That is an accessible topic that you could write a solid, pyramidal tossup on. It would reward intellectual curiosity in a sense because if you read the newspaper or pay attention to sporting events, you should be able to buzz. For trash questions, that should be the standard--accessible, pyramidal, interesting, rewards knowledge.

Mike's right. If we stick to asking sports questions that have historical importance outside of sports since 1900, then we're down to about 20-30 answers, probably about half of which have to do with the Olympics. You don't want to fill 0.4/0.4's worth of a tournament with those questions.

Even the Boston Celtics don't really qualify for such a list, especially if you are talking about the last few years. They have been a very good basketball team, but they haven't been anything other than that--you can't compare them to the 1980 Olympics or Jackie Robinson. From a political perspective, the purchase of the New Jersey Nets is more interesting than anything having to do with the Celtics.

I don't have a problem with somebody saying that sports should come up one or two times per tournament and should stick to stuff that you don't have to be a sports fan to know about, but if you're going to have a decent amount of sports, then you're going to have questions about the New Jersey Nets, University of Pittsburgh, Gilbert Arenas, and so forth that are going to go dead in a small number of rooms and that are going to give a big advantage to sports fans.

David ReinsteinPACE President, Head Writer and Editor for Scobol Solo and Masonics (Illinois), TD for New Trier Scobol Solo and New Trier Varsity, Writer for NAQT, IHSSBCA Board Member, IHSSBCA Chair (2004-2014), New Trier Coach (1994-2011)